Scientific study on Trump voters confirms what people of color have been saying all along
Scientific study on Trump voters confirms what people of color have been saying all along
By Rebecca Ruiz
The Trump voter is often portrayed in media and pop culture as a working-class white person, down on their luck and desperate for change. These voters were — and remain — willing to look past Trump's erratic and unorthodox behavior and "politically incorrect" commentary if his presidency brings better jobs. These voters, the narrative goes, are in pursuit of a noble life, even if the man they chose to be commander-in-chief is neither generous or honorable.
But a new study , published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues that a segment of these voters was motivated partly by a far less righteous cause: to protect their own dominant status in American culture and politics.
The study looks at a nationally representative group of the same voters who cast ballots in 2012 and 2016. In particular, it focuses on those who voted for Barack Obama and then, four years later, supported Trump. Instead of finding voters nervous about their family's finances, it uncovered deep concern related to America's declining global power and the projected demographic changes that will put people of color and ethnic minorities in the majority by 2045.
" What we find is this sense of threat," says Diana C. Mutz, the study's author and professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania.Mutz found no evidence that personal economic anxiety, represented by indicators like worry about retirement savings, medical bills, and education expenses, predicted greater support for Trump. She also asked about the state of voters' personal finances and whether their community had high unemployment and a concentration of manufacturing jobs. Meanwhile, Trump's supporters favored a smaller safety net, which suggests they're less concerned about how people will fare when they face dire financial straits.
One particularly telling factor did increase the likelihood of support for Trump: believing that white people are more discriminated against than people of color, and believing that Christians and men experience more discrimination than Muslims and women.
Mutz also found that the people who switched their vote from Democrat to Republican between 2012 and 2016 were more aligned with Trump's aggressive stance on free trade and China's ascendance as a global superpower. And they expressed a desire for group hierarchy instead of equality, with their group on top.
Other studies since the election found that racial attitudes played a role in Trump's election. Mutz says her analysis, which uses high-quality panel data as opposed to cross-section survey data, suggests that people are more threatened by the accelerating achievements of black people rather than the negative stereotypes they may hold.
Her findings should provoke uncomfortable conversations about the complicated ideas and beliefs that motivated people to vote for Trump. In fact, these are debates many people of color, including those in the media, have engaged in since well before Trump was elected.
But for the past year-and-a-half, many reporters and pundits have crafted the prevailing narrative, which is rooted in sympathy for Trump voters. Roseanne Barr, for example, has taken this campaign into people's living rooms with the reboot of her show, which tacitly defends its support of Trump based on the economic salvation he represents for white working-class Americans. This idea was front-and-center in Sen. Ted Cruz's recent tribute to the president in Time: "President Trump is a flash-bang grenade thrown into Washington by the forgotten men and women of America."
Imagine instead, though, a media narrative that took seriously the notion that voters chose Trump as a way to protect their own dominant status — not as an act of noble rebellion. It might help explain, for instance, the shockingly high approval rating the president still has with evangelical Christians . And yet, that debate is fraught because it points to deep-seated bias and prejudice.
"It's a really difficult conversation for people to have. Most people don't want to perceive themselves as racist."
"It causes people to confront things that are uncomfortable and unflattering," says Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University who was not involved in Mutz's research. "It's a really difficult conversation for people to have. Most people don't want to perceive themselves as racist."
It is indeed easier to point to just about any other thesis for Trump's victory, including Hillary Clinton's various weaknesses as a candidate and her campaign's mistakes. And while Mutz's findings represent one aspect of Clinton's loss, they are arguably the hardest to face.
They also present a daunting challenge for liberal activists hoping to mobilize support for Democrats in this year's midterm elections. There are certainly ways Democrats could strategically tailor their message to address people's concerns about China and globalization, but there's no realistic way for the party to reassure voters interested in protecting their status without betraying its base: black people and progressive allies, who believe that nothing short of full equality and equity will suffice in the 21st century.
Even if the Democrats nominate a flawless presidential candidate in 2020 — as if such a thing exists — it's entirely possible certain voters will still be eager to march to the polls, ready to defend their place on top. No matter how easy it is to pretend that fight is about pocketbook anxieties, it's increasingly clear it's instead over who gets to wield the most power in America. That is a battle we simply cannot ignore.
Tags
Back to the drawing board for the Dems and the liberal media. It really shows how out of touch they are with the voters.
'Back to the drawing board for the gop and Faux 'news'. It really shows how out of touch they are with the voters.'
Fixed it for ya.
So why are the voters rejecting the Democrats during the pass several elections??
why are the voters rejecting the Democrats
That's the thing. The voters overwhelmingly vote D, (have you already forgotten that Trump lost by 3 million votes?), they're just having trouble getting over the gerrymandering barrier the R's starting throwing up after the 2010 census and the outdated EC.
Democratic House candidates winning the popular vote, despite big GOP majority - (2012 election)
Democratic House candidates appear to have won more of the popular vote than their Republican counterparts on Tuesday, despite what looks as though it will be a 35-seat GOP majority.
According to numbers compiled by the Post's great Dan Keating, Democrats have won roughly 48.8 percent of the House vote, compared to 48.47 percent for Republicans.
Despite losing the popular vote, Republicans are set to have their second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression.
Now that the courts are throwing out the most egregious of the State gerrymandered maps perhaps the American voters can get the State level candidate they want.
It will take more to insure their votes aren't negated by the EC in the future but that will take more time.
So why are the voters rejecting the Democrats during the pass several elections??
Do these states ring a bell?
Virginia, Alabama, Pennsylvania.
Virginia, Alabama, Pennsylvania.
You know Greg doesn't count THOSE elections....
under a wildly popular Democratic President.
Thanx for admitting this, finally.
Your favorite comment and you never fix anything!
You DO realize that the overall popular vote for Congressional seats means absolutely nothing, right?
Heck, some Democrats in California can get elected with something like 70% of the vote and really skew the numbers.
Admit it?
Have I ever denied it?
Have you come to grips with the fact the Obama's personal popularity never translated down-ticket for his party?
Trump lost by 3 million votes?)
said by someone who believes the national majority even matters.
too funny 
Have you come to grips with the fact the Obama's personal popularity never translated down-ticket for his party?
I believe that a part of that had to do with the fact that the Tea Party and, the Republicans waged an eight year war on all things Democratic and, gerrymandered districts in their favor, the proof of this can be found in states like Virginia and, Pennsylvania and, North Carolina.
Ah, the old, tired gambit about gerrymandering!
Laughable if it wasn't just so damn sad you actually believe that nonsense!
Yep, that whole thing is fake. /sarc/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-virginia-redistricting-must-be-reexamined-for-racial-bias/2017/03/01/3bde8b66-fe99-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.5b7a40c5c15b
Democrats gerrymander, too.
Please don't act as if they haven't and don't.
I believe you are just pissed off because the Democrats have lost much of their ability to do so in many parts of the country.
there is a cure for that, however:
Win some elections and change things instead of merely whining and bleating about it.
Democrats gerrymander, too.
Were they dragged into court and, told that they had to redo their districts because the way they set them up was unconstitutional? No, I don't think so!!
And? Does that mean that they did NOT gerrymander?
Another logical fallacy?
Have I ever claimed they didn't gerrymander?? No I haven't, what I can't stand is when one political party takes gerrymandering to the level the Republicans have, if you see nothing wrong with what they have done then there is something really wrong with you.
And?
We'll mark you down as "thinking" there is something wrong with me.
Oh, the ignomy of it all!
How will I ever recover?
We'll mark you down as "thinking" there is something wrong with me.
Do you think it is alright if someone robs a bank to rob a bank yourself? The Republicans in these states trampled on the Constitution that you have said you hold dear but, you find nothing wrong with that because, "The Democrats gerrymander too." I'm still waiting for you to tell me when the Democratic party was dragged into court and, told that they had gerrymandered an area in an unconstitutional way, site the case for me.
Maybe Republicans aren't as whiny about it. Maybe Republicans don't reflexively run into court to have problems solved for them. Maybe they take pride in overcoming challenges on their own. Maybe.
Back to the drawing board for the Dems and the liberal media. It really shows how out of touch they are with the voters.
Dems/liberals/progressives have to start by eradicating identity politics from their platforms. People of all races and ethnicities no longer buy into that crap.
Back to the drawing board for the Dems and the liberal media. It really shows how out of touch they are with the voters.
Thank you for admitting that white conservatives do not support equal rights for others. We already knew that when Trump and the GOP refuse to condemn and distance themselves from the alt-right.
And the award for "DOH" goes to...
But a new study , published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues that a segment of these voters was motivated partly by a far less righteous cause: to protect their own dominant status in American culture and politics.
And a segment of the Racist Left voted for Clinton, and a segment of the Racist Right voted for Trump. OMG! How could this happen! The NBPP supported Clinton the diehard out of touch Democratic candidate that buys votes with government handouts, and the NWSP supported Trump, the white guy who wants to force out the illegal immigrants that are overwhelming non-whites and threatening their dominance as a race. Really??? We need a scientific study to state the obvious????
The NBPP supported Clinton the diehard out of touch Democratic candidate that buys votes with government handouts
LIE.
LIE.
Really? Which part?
The NBPP supported Clinton
So you are claiming their members voted for someone else? T-Rump perhaps???
the diehard out of touch Democratic candidate
Two-thirds of Americans think that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the country
that buys votes with government handouts
So you are claiming that the Democrat's aren't pushing for Amnesty for Illegal's, expanding Obamacare, increasing Social Security benefits, do not endorse free education, etc, etc, etc,... PUH-leeze!
Now who is lying here???
Two-thirds of Americans think that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the country
I would have to say that this holds true for both parties, the GOP just markets their stupidity better. For all the blame searching from the right and left, one would have to look no closer than the nearest mirror to find the perpetrator after all we are the ones that elect these folks.
Really? Which part?
The part I quoted.
So you are claiming that the Democrat's aren't pushing for Amnesty for Illegal's,
You read a hell of a lot into one word.
As to 'Amnesty'. Cite ONE bill proposes 'Amnesty for illegals' filed by a Democrat.
expanding Obamacare, increasing Social Security benefits, do not endorse free education, etc, etc, etc,...
You seem to think those are bad things. Why? Please be specific.
PUH-leeze!
Now who is lying here???
Your statement was a LIE. The NBPP did NOT support Clinton and in FACT the leadership came out against Clinton. Perhaps in the future you won't connect race with politics.
As to 'Amnesty'. Cite ONE bill proposes 'Amnesty for illegals' filed by a Democrat.
Any one of them that does anything that allows them to stay. Now name ONE that doesn't.
You seem to think those are bad things. Why? Please be specific.
Sorry, but you ass-u-me too much. I never said they were bad things, simply that they are dangled in front of the masses in order to secure the votes--and then promptly forgotten. 2008 to 2010 being a prime example...
The NBPP did NOT support Clinton and in FACT the leadership came out against Clinton.
Well aware of what the leadership said just as I am well aware of what the members did, and it wasn't voting for T-Rump . To quote Quanell X:
"Saying that Quanell X is voting for Donald Trump could not be further from the truth as Satan is from God. There's no way I'd vote for Donald Trump when, at his heart, he cares nothing for black people," Quanell said. "He [Trump] has affiliations with white supremacy groups. How the hell could I support that man?"
"Dear brothers and sisters, regardless if it's Trump or Hillary Clinton that becomes presdient, neither one of them is going to do anything significant or real relevant to change the condition of the black community," he said. "We've got to come up with a better option to both, or just stay home."
So of the ones that didn't "stay home", who do you think they actually voted for? Trump, right... ROFLMFAO !
Perhaps in the future you won't connect race with politics.
I cited them as an example of a Left Wing Hate group that supported Shill-ary with their votes while also calling out the Right Wing hate group NSWP. YOU jumped on the Race Wagon because you somehow want to do anything you can to deflect from the fact that the Left is full of Haters too.
Any one of them that does anything that allows them to stay.
Perhaps it would behoove you to review the meaning of the word 'Amnesty'.
Sorry, but you ass-u-me too much. I never said they were bad things, simply that they are dangled in front of the masses in order to secure the votes--and then promptly forgotten. 2008 to 2010 being a prime example...
Obamacare passed and the US has free primary education. The GOP hasn't forgotten that nor have they ever stopped trying to change that.
Well aware of what the leadership said just as I am well aware of what the members did, and it wasn't voting for T-Rump.
Your comment was about "supporting' and your own post proves that it was a lie.
I cited them as an example of a Left Wing Hate group that supported Shill-ary with their votes while also calling out the Right Wing hate group NSWP.
While having no empirical evidence about how either group voted. Assume much?
YOU jumped on the Race Wagon because you somehow want to do anything you can to deflect from the fact that the Left is full of Haters too.
Interesting Freudian slip at the end of that sentence...
Perhaps it would behoove you to review the meaning of the word 'Amnesty'.
Perhaps you should take your own advice, but I know you won't because it would prove you wrong so here we go:
grant an official pardon to.
Overstaying a visa or sneaking across the border is illegal. Allowing someone to stay who has done so instead of deporting them is giving them Amnesty. I guess next you want to debate "illegal"???
Obamacare passed and the US has free primary education. The GOP hasn't forgotten that nor have they ever stopped trying to change that.
Obamacare sucks and the masses are too stupid to acknowledge it and stand up for UniversalCare, and free education predates the GOP here by a few hundred years. I'm all for free education all the way through a college degree, and I also see a place for private Universities too just as we have Private schools all the way through the education process. But then I'm a Socialist at heart trapped in a Capitalistic Society....
Assume much?
Not at all, We have concrete evidence that 88% of blacks voted for Shill-ary. Voting for her is supporting her. Are you in Denial much???
Interesting Freudian slip at the end of that sentence...
I'm not seeing it so please, elucidate...
grant an official pardon to.
Overstaying a visa or sneaking across the border is illegal. Allowing someone to stay who has done so instead of deporting them is giving them Amnesty. I guess next you want to debate "illegal"???
Actually, I'm not debating the definition of Amnesty with you. I'm trying, and failing, to get you to recognize that you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Pardon: the action of forgiving or being forgiven for an error or offense.
Since y'all claim to be all about law and order, you should recognize that 'illegal immigrants' have Constitutional rights. We have Immigration laws that have for DECADES deferred deportation until a hearing is held. You know, that whole 'Due Process' thingy. Deferments DO NOT equate 'Amnesty' or a 'pardon.
I'm all for free education all the way through a college degree
Hey, you brought it up and when asked failed to elaborate.
Not at all, We have concrete evidence that 88% of blacks voted for Shill-ary. Voting for her is supporting her. Are you in Denial much???
We have concrete evidence that the NBPP is a couple thousand our of the 46,778,674 black population and easily could have made up some of the 12% that DIDN'T vote for Clinton. Again, you have NO empirical evidence of who either group voted. DO stop pretending that you do.
I'm not seeing it so please, elucidate...
Maybe those that saw it too can explain it to you.
You know, that whole 'Due Process' thingy. Deferments DO NOT equate 'Amnesty' or a 'pardon.
So NOW you are claiming that all of these Illegals will be getting their day in court and NOT getting Amnesty? ROFLMFAO!!!!!!
Sorry, but ANY bill that does NOT include going home and coming in the right way (fulfilling the legal immigration requirements) is AMNESTY! Spin it any way you want, it fits the definition!
Hey, you brought it up and when asked failed to elaborate.
Wasn't asked to elaborate on my personal views on education. I was asked what it is that Democrat's promise to get votes. Try to keep up.
Again, you have NO empirical evidence of who either group voted.
I have statistics and the odds in my favor. It is you that must prove me wrong. Good luck!
Maybe those that saw it too can explain it to you.
Typical. You want someone else to do the work while you reap the rewards of the fruit of their labor. Put up or shut up.
So NOW you are claiming that all of these Illegals will be getting their day in court and NOT getting Amnesty?
I'm simply stating the immigration law as it has stood for decades.
BTW, size isn't everything...
Sorry, but ANY bill that does NOT include going home and coming in the right way (fulfilling the legal immigration requirements) is AMNESTY! Spin it any way you want, it fits the definition!
It not spin, it's English.
Wasn't asked to elaborate on my personal views on education. I was asked what it is that Democrat's promise to get votes. Try to keep up.
Actually, I asked you WHY you seemed to think those policies were bad and asked you SPECIFICALLY WHY. You passed...
I have statistics and the odds in my favor.
Statistics and odds do NOT empirically support your posit.
It is you that must prove me wrong. Good luck!
Since you are the one that made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
Typical. You want someone else to do the work while you reap the rewards of the fruit of their labor. Put up or shut up.
As the one gathering understanding, you would be the one garnering the fruit of another's 'labor'. Though I must say, I'll bet many understood without any labor at all...
I'm simply stating the immigration law as it has stood for decades.
Hardly the case, you are trying to backpedal your claim that there are no bills being introduced that would grant Amnesty. Already proven wrong, you are now trying to deflect.
You keep saying that the programs I mentioned were bad in my opinion. Nowhere have I said or indicated that. What I did was use them as examples of promises regularly dangled in front of voters to garner support, and then dropped once they reach office. Now exactly how does that translate into me thinking they are bad things???? Another attempt at deflection.
Empirical evidence???? Do you know the definitions of the big words you are attempting to use???
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
I'm quite sure I have more than enough evidence to show that Blacks overwhelming vote Democrat and overwhelmingly voted for Clin-toon, and I also have evidence saying there was NO WAY IN HELL the NBPP leaders would support T-Rump. Observation of NBPP members at polling places (at least unarmed this time) proves they were there. Again, trying to deflect won't change anything.
As the one gathering understanding, you would be the one garnering the fruit of another's 'labor'. Though I must say, I'll bet many understood without any labor at all...
Translation: I've got nothing to back up my pathetic attempt at an insult so I'll just keep digging the hole deeper.
Better luck next time with the debating me!
Ciao!
Already proven wrong, you are now trying to deflect.
Actually, since you can't even seem to recognize the accurate definition of 'Amnesty', which is central to your entire posit, the only thing that you've proven wrong is your posit.
What I did was use them as examples of promises regularly dangled in front of voters to garner support, and then dropped once they reach office.
To which I gave examples of promises that WERE followed through on. You admitted to favoring public education but ignored Obamacare and increasing SSI.
Now exactly how does that translate into me thinking they are bad things???? Another attempt at deflection.
The original posts:
You:
expanding Obamacare, increasing Social Security benefits, do not endorse free education, etc, etc, etc,...
Me:
You seem to think those are bad things. Why? Please be specific.
This is where YOU insist that I am saying that 'you think those are bad things', yet you have to ignore the words SEEM TO in order to begin YOUR deflection.
Empirical evidence???? Do you know the definitions of the big words you are attempting to use???
Yes. I also know that Wikipedia isn't the best source for the definition of terms. Perhaps it would behoove you to broaden your scope of knowledge.
Observation of NBPP members at polling places (at least unarmed this time) proves they were there. Again, trying to deflect won't change anything.
Did you make these observations personally or do you have a link to the 'investigative' reporting on NBPP's activity on election day? I'd like to review the videos taken from inside the voting booth since only those will ensure that they weren't part of the percentage of Blacks that voted for someone other than Clinton.
I've got nothing to back up my pathetic attempt at an insult so I'll just keep digging the hole deeper.
I've tried to get you to stop digging to no avail.
Better luck next time with the debating me! Ciao!
You were debating? Who knew?
since you can't even seem to recognize the accurate definition of 'Amnesty'
Really? Considering that I gave you the verbatim definition from the dictionary and you keep denying that any bill that does not include returning to their country of origin and coming back using the correct and legal form of immigration is Amnesty, the pardoning of a legal offense, I would say that the lack of comprehension in reading is not my own.
You admitted to favoring public education but ignored Obamacare
Read it again; I said Obamacare sucks. Two reasons:
- It is NOT UniversalCare, which even Cuba can give its citizens, but the U,S, can't?
- It forces people under penalty of Law to purchase For-Profit coverage from Corporations--which is Plutocratic Corporatism at its finest!
Perhaps it would behoove you to broaden your scope of knowledge.
Haven't used Wiki once in this entire exchange, but I'm not surprised you don't recognize actual dictionary definitions.
'investigative' reporting on NBPP's activity on election day?
So you are claiming they voted for "theDevil" over the Democratic candidate Shill-ary. I assume you have some illegal footage of voting taking place by NBPP members to back your claim??? No? Why not? Oh yeah, because it's ILLEGAL to film people voting--even YOURSELF! I'm betting you already knew that though which is why you are asking for what cannot legally be given even if it does exist.
I've tried to get you to stop digging to no avail.
Further proving your pathetic attempt at deflections. Kind of left off the most important part of that statement didn't you? I guess when you know you've already lost the argument, you will stoop to ANY level to try to save face rather than actually admit defeat.
You were debating? Who knew?
Everyone except those who can't admit defeat apparently...
You really need to up your game on the attempt at insults. If possible that is...
"Racist Left?" What are they and what do they do?
That racist dog whistle is obvious. The NBPP is irrelevant to anyone but the Archie Bunker demographic.
As of 2009, the NBPP claimed a few thousand members organized in 45 chapters, while independent estimates by the Anti-Defamation League suggest that the group is much smaller.
That racist dog whistle is obvious.
What dog whistle? The one pointing out the Racist support of Clin-toon, or the one pointing out the Racist support of T-Rump? Or maybe you honestly believe that the Left is not Racist with the exception of the NBPP? Far from the truth...
Here puppy....
Isn't it rather odd that this organization is not considered relevant or important because it has so few members, while a group like the KKK with a total membership of 8k at best is?
HA! Is Social Studies a science?
"Social science, which is generally regarded as including psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics and political science, consists of the disciplined and systematic study of society and its institutions, and of how and why people behave as they do, both as individuals and in groups within society. At a minimum it would appear that to be "scientific" entails a systematic and disciplined method of acquiring knowledge, and that knowledge must be verifiable knowledge.
...
Although our focus is on social science, social scientists are not the only scholars with a contribution to make to a debate which certainly pre-dates the advent of social science. The debate about the media and their influence and role in society has been carried on by literary critics, social philosophers, moralists, artists and educators who, judging from their comments, often feel that the social scientists are so preoccupied with research techniques and methodological devices that their works lack immediate social relevance, tending to concentrate only on the questions for which they have the `scientific' means at their disposal to answer rather than the questions which are the most interesting and important. The social scientists in turn query the usefulness of evidence produced without the benefit of scientific approaches and criticize what they consider to be the undisciplined nature of the generalizations, interpretations and speculations which abound in this field (McQuail, 2005, chapter 3).
.
So ... 'just over' 1200 individuals filled out a questionnaire (online and by phone) in October 2012 - then the same individuals completed the same questionnaire in October of 2016 ... enables this 'scientific study' to determine Trump won based on 'Status Threat'.... (?) sorta like painting the barn in one stroke..
Significance
Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education . Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status. Results highlight the importance of looking beyond theories emphasizing changes in issue salience to better understand the meaning of election outcomes when public preferences and candidates’ positions are changing.
Research Design
A nationally representative panel survey was used to evaluate two central hypotheses. First, does being left behind with respect to personal financial wellbeing predict change in the direction of Republican support in 2016? Second, did issue positions reflecting perceived status threat, whether racial or global, increase the likelihood of shifting toward the Republican presidential candidate in 2016? The panel study includes identical questions asked of the same individuals in both October 2012 and 2016, thus making it possible to examine both whether these opinions weighed more heavily in vote choice in 2016 and/or whether change over time in issue opinions corresponds to change over time in Republican vs. Democratic candidate support. By analyzing both processes simultaneously, I eliminate the potential for confounding these two explanations.
Conclusion
Narratives are important, because they structure people’s understanding of what has occurred and why. They also guide the behavior of elected representatives in deciding how to represent their constituencies. When the people have spoken, the postelection narrative decides what it is they have said. Based on these results, it would be a mistake for people to understand the 2016 election as resulting from the frustration of those left behind economically. Instead, both experimental evidence and panel survey evidence document significant political consequences from a rising sense of status threat among dominant groups in the United States.
I only highlighted 3 sections ... I recommend reading more at:
The 'disaffected white voter' is a sham. Assuming that demographic exists, then that demographic has yet to figure out that Supply Side Economics is the yoke around their neck and the party mainly responsible for SSE is the party they are now supporting. Perhaps someday this 'disaffected demographic' will comprehend that the bible, the flag, the fetus and the gun is not and never will be their key to economic stability and prosperity.
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
As I am acquainted with a few who voted for Mr. Trump I would somewhat agree with the rational presented. The other factor that I believe was strongly underestimated was the intense (and it still continues) dislike for Ms. Clinton, I do believe this went under the radar.
The other factor that I believe was strongly underestimated was the intense (and it still continues) dislike for Ms. Clinton
Yep. The right wing nuts have been ginning up that hate since the mid 1970s when Bill was the Arkansas AG. They've been seeding bogus rumors about the Clintons ever since then so it's hard to insulate the general public from that blithering nonsense. Plus Bill is way better than Hillary as a public speaker.
how does this explain the 7 million obama supporters who voted trump? are they racist also?
how does this explain the 7 million obama supporters who voted trump? are they racist also?
We may know the answer to that question once the Flynn, Papadopolous, Gates, et al testimonies become public … and …
… Michael Cohen's wife and children plead with him to trade off some prison time for some indicting facts.
RACISTS, RUSSIANS, ROGER (Stone) et al may get yo your answer.
RACISTS, RUSSIANS, ROGER (Stone) et al may get yo your answer.
just curious...
do you seriously believe that? too funny
did putin also tell trump to raise black employment to the highest level our country has ever seen?
/
hint: 7 million obama voters supported trump for more jobs, secure borders, better trade deals, lower taxes, and less liberal bs.
It's also interesting that leftists display such an unwavering need to make villains of all who dare disagree with them.
All the while listening to the right-wing hypocrites deride "political correctness!"
Yeah! Right! Interesting.
REBUTTAL.
Why don't Trump voters even remotely understand that Trump is one of the biggest globalists out there as every billionaire certainly is?
Trump and his entire family own properties, hotels, golf courses, clothing sweat shops, and investments around the world including China.
Did one Trump voter bother to look at the hobnobbing with China that Ivanka did in order to maintain her trademarks? There were photos and it was widely covered after the election.
Did one Trump voter bother to look at the countries where there is a Trump hotel?
Did one Trump voter bother to look at how many foreign visas were granted for foreign workers to work at Trump properties like Mar-A-Lago? Or how many foreign workers work at Trump properties in America?
Did one Trump voter bother to demand, I mean really DEMAND Trump's tax returns so they could see?
They do not want the truth. They refuse to accept the truth. They will never investigate or look at Trump's global empire or his role.
Who is online
182 visitors
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Well, can't say I'm all that surprised by these results.
black people and progressive allies, who believe that nothing short of full equality and equity will suffice in the 21st century.
The above are fighting battles they have already won. You would be surprised how many blacks and Hispanics voted for Trump because they were tired of the lies and broken promises that emanate from the Democrats. As the midterms quickly approach, it appears that the Democrats have still not learned their lesson. The base depicted above is not large enough to overcome the distrust the left wing has generated by going hard left and continually finding ways to lose elections. The frivolous DNC lawsuit is simply the latest example of that.
Well, I must say that I am surprised by the information. Well, not really.
See for yourself.
Already won?
Not sure those two black men recently arrested at Starbucks would agree. Doubt the same sex married couples that were told they don't have the right to access the same benefits as dual sex couples do fell the fight is already won, or the teacher who lost her job after complaining about sexual harassment at work but was told she couldn't sue, in part, because the person harassing her was also a women.
Wonder if the Imam who has trouble getting a Mosque built for his congregation thinks the fight is over. Especially when he has a President trying to implement a religious ban against immigrants that happen to share the Muslim faith.
Not sure the transgender community members who have served, are serving now or who wish to serve our Country in the future would agree that the battle is over and that all people now hold a place of equality in our society.
Lots of world still left to do.
Since when?
And how 'bout the Native Americans who can't get ANYBODY in the Fed government to honor the treaties make for the land(s)/lives/cultures/traditions/religions taken????
I think someone from the movies said it really well,
And, that's a fact. They need a "screaming at the sky"!
No, it's not a fact .
A religious ban?
What have you been smoking?
Trump has issued no EOs regarding Muslims.
If I am mistaken, please point out in what EO he mentions Muslims specifically and attempts to bar them from the US.
Okay, so you believe that the US has honored all treaties with Indians.
Got it.
Shall we all hold hands , sing "Kumbaya" and ignore facts?
Broken Promises On Display At Native American Treaties ...
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-
Jan 18, 2015 · More than 370 ratified treaties have helped the U.S. expand its territory and led to many broken promises made to American Indians. A rare exhibit of such treaties at the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., looks back at this history.
Treaties Made, Treaties Broken - blog.nativepartnership.org
blog.nativepartnership.org/treaties-made-treaties-broken
Treaties Made, Treaties Broken By Helen Oliff | Published: March 3, 2011 Kelly wrote that colonization created the condition of poverty on many American Indian reservations today.
TRAIL OF BROKEN TREATIES - - American Indian Movement
https://aimovement.org/ggc/trailofbrokentreaties.html
"TRAIL OF BROKEN TREATIES": ... perhaps extending the protective jurisdiction of the United States over Indians in State institutions to provide for transfer to ...
Illuminating the Treaties That Have Governed U.S.-Indian ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/treaties...
Illuminating the Treaties That Have Governed U.S.-Indian Relationships These documents were both a cause and a salve for the fraught relations between the United States and Indian Nations
No value [ph]
Wanna support your comment - or is this another drive-by???
You know this HOW exactly?
Actual data prove that Trump faired about the same as Romney with Blacks and Hispanics.
I await your seed on the subject.
Not sure which version of Trumps travel ban is going before the Supreme court this month but there is no doubt that the President thinks he's implementing a Muslim ban if it passes court muster.
Many white nationalists and closeted white supremacists believe that the war fought for equality was won when the "whites only" labels were removed from bathrooms and water fountains. They are oblivious to the continuing cycles of poverty, the "white flight" from neighborhoods where black Americans started buying homes after the civil rights act was signed and the re-segregation of America using financial means as the barrier instead of skin color, but ended up with nearly the same results.
Vine DeLoria and Charles Wilkerson wrote numerous books highlighting the broken treaties/supreme court decisions affecting/opposing Native Americans.
"Custer Died For Your Sins"; "White Man's Indian"; "Killing The White Man's Indian"; "Retained by the People"; "Blood Struggle"; "Red Earth, White Lies"; "The Nation's Within"; "Indian Country"; "The World We Used To Live In"; "In The Courts of the Conquerers" by Walter Echo-Hawk; "Tribal Governments as Sovereigns"; "American Indian Sovereignty and U. S. Supreme Court"; and, finally, "Tribes, Treaties and Constitutional Tribulations". and, there is the Indian Law Series, published by Arizona State University School of Law and Tulsa University School of Law.
Tess - please don't speak of what you don't know.
This is version 3.0 I believe and it has already failed to pass 'court muster' hence the appeal to the SCOTUS by Trump. They are genuflecting over shrines to Gorsuch, praying that he can save Trump's Muslim ban from the Constitution...
And in what make-believe world would a supposed Muslim ban NOT include over 90% of the world's Muslims?
Ahhh Dulay my friend - see my post above.
The subject matter took me four years to complete and it is/was very sickening at the outrageous audacity of the U. S. and state governments mindset towards Native Americans - and other minorities.
My comment was in all seriousness. Link?
Where did you dredge that from?
'And, that's a fact. They need a "screaming at the sky"!'
This is where I am saying - that's not a fact.
Why are you following me around like a puppy dog? I'm not interested.
Thanks for pointing out the truth to Tex - though he'll dismiss it.
gee, let me see.
Post 2.1.4 talks about treaties and how the US broke treaties with the Indians.
Post 2.1.6 a poster says that it was a fact (about the US breaking treaties.)
In your post 2.1.7, you claim, without any corroboration or data, that is a lie (US breaking treaties with Indians)
And then I gave you more info which you chose to ignore or didn't understand if you read it.
THAT is where ANY thinking adult would "get that from"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'I said nothing about treaties not being honored. Magnolia said something like: 'That's a fact - Liberals need something to scream at the sky about'
That's what I said was not a fact. I know of no liberals who go out and scream at the sky. I wanted to cry when Donald Rump got the White House but I never screamed at the sky and never intend to. I'll just wait until Mueller is done. Tick, tock.
My challenge is open for ALL.
Please list in any EO issued by Trump where it bans Muslims. For once, please PROVE something.
Barring that, you have come up empty again.
For once, please PROVE something.
Barring that, you have come up empty again.
That kind of figures. I hear that often when I challenge people to back their outlandish claims up with facts, and I really expected less of you than I do from others.
You didn't disappoint.
Congrats.
OK, now I understand - the post didn't "explain" that enough.
Thanks.
Of Course.
QUICK.........What's your name ?
Really? Apparently Facebook "News" didn't cover it. Well, here are some examples ...
Executive order 13769: Ruled unconstitutional in multiple Circuit Courts.
Which Trump superseded with Executive Order 13780 by saying:
“A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries,” Trump told the crowd in Nashville, which reacted with boos. “The order he blocked was a watered-down version of the first order that was also blocked by another judge and should have never been blocked to start with.” and was being litigated, AGAIN in multiple Circuits until the government [Trump] declared it moot and amended with:
Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is now being heard by the SCOTUS.
Any questions?
I don't know those folks. Again, I don't know anyone who did that.
And my response was in all seriousness - read the books listed (and there are many more I could post for you) for supporting documentation.
You could start with the Marshall Trilogies
Now, on treaties
After you have read and reviewed the above books and links, I'll be glad to discuss them with you.
But, read them first before you start trying to tear them apart.
Neither do I, but that wasn't the point of why I posted the videos. Without mentioning names, it's clear to see that NT's Trump haters share a kinship with the folks in the videos.
I don't see it.
Don't include "other" minorities as our government is taking care of them. It is the Native American who has been left out. They are peace loving and hardly ever whine....I am whining for them.
Sorry to butt in .. yet, I 'speculate' that there is communication in need of clarity... I (once again) 'speculate' that Dulay awaits your seeding of the subject matter regarding the broken treaties with interest and a desire to participate in said discussion... not as a 'prove it to me' kind of statement.
I could be wrong....
Sadly, you're making a completely unfounded assumption.
I have supported Pine Ridge for over a decade, long before it became front page news [mostly sponsoring the purchase of stoves and winter firewood].
Indian country media network is part of my newsfeed, as are KILI Radio, WPLC and Nibi Emosaawdamajig. I helped sponsor a professor of Indigenous studies, who is a long time friend of mine, on the September Great Lakes water walk last year. I support the Grandmothers as best I can...
But, not all are active and feel as you do. There should be more like you....unfortunately, there aren't.
I await your evidence on the subject.
How is the government taking care of those 'other' minorities mags?
Yet no one should ASSUME that another will trash their sources.
There are a plethora of other causes to support, I choose Grandmothers [and Mother Earth] as one of mine. I do not begrudge others their choices, even if they choose to help no one but themselves.
Why, aren't 1st's links good enough for you? Tell you what, do as 1st asked, read his links before you ask for further source material...
Thanks for admitting that you didn't understand the videos.
I do have one that my friend sent me to bookmark that 1st didn't mention:
Uh, YEAH!
Where in the EO does It ban Muslims, as is the claim?
Please point it out--I have asked several times and everyone has been assuring me that it IS a Muslim ban, but no one can point to where anything about banning Muslims is. Can you point it out?
As opposed to those who have been helplessly praying at the sky for centuries, which ones are more crazy?
Miigwetch Dulay. I think that 1st totally misunderstood what you were saying.
Being Ojibwe I'm well versed in some of the things that you support. Nibi Emosaawdamajig (those that walk for water) is a movement in Minnesota as well. The Mississippi being a very important part of our existence.
Gakina Awiiya niijii (we are all related my friend)
Gee Texan, you know about intent don't you? The Courts rule on the content of a law, or an EO for that matter, based on the intent of the authors. For legislation, they review the floor debates in Congress for their intent. Hell, the SCOTUS has even relied on personal correspondence and the Federalist papers to suss out the Founders intent.
For an EO, the Trump's intent of his EOs they reviewed his statements about his intent. From day 1, Trump stated clearly that his INTENT was to institute a Muslim ban. I know that y'all would prefer that we ignore everything that comes out of Trump's mouth [and his twitter feed], but when ruling on Trump's intent, his WORDS are the touchstone. Trump's intent is unconstitutional.
So you insist in calling it a Muslim ban.
Hmmmm............
.Muslims not mentioned in EO. Muslims not banned from entering US.
And of course, no explanation as to why an alleged Muslim ban would not include over 90% of the world's Muslims.
You know, if I wanted to ban something, I sure wouldn't make it where over 90% of the people I am supposedly banning isn't included. That simply makes NO sense--even in Liberal La-La-Land.
Hey, I know what y'all can do next.
Instead of banning "assault" rifles, go ahead and ban knives instead. It would make almost as much sense as calling Trump's EO a Muslim ban, which doesn't even include Muslims.
A long time friend of mine is a professor and an Indigenous woman who began one of her walks at the mouth of the Missouri and rejoined the walk at the St. Louis ceremonies. As an educator, she collaborates with the Minnesota’s Ojibwe nation. Her contributions to her tribe and her people put me to shame. She sent me her study materiall which taught me a lot and motivated me to concentrate on supporting the Grandmothers.
It seems that your have a water protector as a friend Dulay. Our current battle in MN is to defeat the Enbridge 3 pipeline across northern MN.
Keep up the good fight Dulay. It's well worth it.
I'll take 'Muslim nations where Trump does business' for $1000 Alex.
So now it ISN'T a Muslim ban?
WTF?
make up your mind and stop spinning.
Dulay - Concur with what Kavika said below - yes, I misunderstood your "question/request" 'cause, as Kavika can tell you, when he and I and others start to try to "tell our story", slam, slam, slam.
When we were on NV and at the beginning of NT, Kavika, Tsula, our grandfather, myself and others would use educational (or so we thought) bits for articles. In the beginning, it was really successful - I think.
Then, the "naysayers" jumped in and would denigrate our threads/articles/seeds so much that we pretty well gave up on our educational intent and just kept them within our family group - Anishinabbe.
Now I understand your question/point and apologize for my misreading.
Mea culpa.
Where the hell did you see THAT in my post? Sheesh.
The difficulty with the Kappler's treaty collection is that it only covers the U. S./Native American. It doesn't list the 52 California treaties submitted that Congress, quite handily, never bothered to ratify, nor does it cover the treaties made between the French, English and Native Americans - I think there were 79 total - which, to many of us working in Fed/Ind Law were a great foundation.
One of our major questions was - If the French and English, who were using International/Common Law in the 16/1700's, could draft and support their treaties, as written and "ratified", how could Marshall rule using the Doctrine of Discovery - also an International/Common Law concept. The French/Brits seemed to understand the Papal Bull of 1523, which changed the Doctrine of Discovery by stating the tribes/nations were already countries/sovereign nations - yet Marshall went the opposite direction. Could it have been because of the 730,000 acres of Indian land that he and his dad had "bought" from the tribes/nations in violation of the Intercourse Act???
Thanks for the link.
Accepted. We all jump too fast sometimes.
Perhaps, you should read how the Native American feels about the man in the sky and their beliefs.
Nope - you're right - just haven't had my 5th cup of coffee kick in to assist in comprehension
(Gads I wish Uppy would get back soon)
And it still happens on the FP. Some here don't want to hear/read anything that does not fall in lock-step with their own biased thinking.
Having said that, there are some here who I have found really do take an interest in the traditions, beliefs and culture of Native Americans. However, it seems that the naysayers and racists out number them, thus, it tends to be impossible to try to have any kind of civil discussion and sharing of ideas, beliefs and opinions regarding Native Americans due to the hatred of those who feel that all Native Americans should simply give up and die off as they have made no viable contributions to America , and serve no valid purpose to America, or its people.
Yet, nothing....NOTHING....could be further from the truth.
We have read your story time after time.
And, I always remember you and pray that when your son "walked" you will meet him, again.
Whining doesn't get it. I will walk behind the Native American anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Kavika and lst Warrior are true warriors, but I want to see Native American congressman, legislators, POTUS. If Obama can be president so can a Native American. Man, I would love that! We need a statesman like Obama.
If Muslim nations are not included in the ban, it can hardly be considered a Muslim ban.
If the number of Muslim nations that are included isn't to your liking you'll have to take it up with Trump. HE labeled it a Muslim Ban and HE decided what countries to include.
it isn't a question of whether something is to my liking.
I merely pointed out that if you want to ban Muslims, leaving 90% of them off your ban list is an awful way to start banning Muslims.
I don't believe it is a Muslim ban for that reason and the fact that it DOESN'T BAN MUSLIMS.
You can not point to one single thing IN the EO that actually bans Muslims. I know this because I have had this argument before, and everyone has TRIED to find something to make it into a Muslim ban, and have all failed repeatedly.
He thinks that they have enough rights and they don't deserve anymore because that would mean less social power for him.
Conservatives aren't happy unless they can look down on someone.
LBJ understood the mindset of social conservatives and equality.
Actually, it looks like it is.
As I clearly pointed out that if you think that Trump failed in his goal, take it up with him.
It sure as hell DOES ban the Muslims that don't make Trump any money.
Not a single thing it the 2nd Amendment says 'own' either does it?
TRUMP made it into a Muslim ban by clearly stating his intent. If YOUR goal is to ban every Muslim in the world, your argument is with the man who made you a promise and failed you, not me.
i don't have any Muslim goals.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Call it whatever you want, and I'll call it what it really is.
NO MUSLIMS WERE BANNED.
COMPLETELY ridiculous and dishonest to say otherwise.
Lie.
PROVE IT THEN.
It shouldn't be that hard for you.
Just tell us WHICH Muslims were banned.
That's ALL you have to do to prove it.
Bet you can't!!!
The Mulsim bias of the immigration ban is very obvious. You can try to ignore that fact.
Trump admitted the bias.
So PROVE IT.
Which Muslims have been banned?
Where is the law or EO banning them?
Can you point it out to us?
I have legal precedent on my side.
I suppose we all could just wait until the SC decides it.
And I believe they will rule for the Administration, because the Constitution and Congress has given the President power to do exactly what he did.
But it IS interesting that not a soul can produce anything in the EO that is discriminatory. Or bans Muslims. Or even mentions Muslims.
just seems to me that if all of you are right, it should be able to be easily proven, instead of a big nothingburger.
The President has the right and the power to limit immigration.
"The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power," the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president "may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants" whenever he thinks it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."
Typically, legal experts say, the president would almost certainly win a legal fight involving national security and foreign citizens entering the country.
How broad is the president’s constitutional power?
Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.
Wait, so now you want specific names of people? What comes after that? DNA samples? Look, Sanders said it wasn't a Muslim ban..the next day trump said that she was mistaken and it IS a Muslim ban. Are you calling trump a liar? Or Stupid?
Okay, since you seem not to understand.
How about this scenario:
Under Trump's EO, would a Muslim from France be denied admissions to the US solely because he is a Muslim?
How about a Muslim from Great Britain? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Japan? Indonesia? China?
Look, Sanders said it wasn't a Muslim ban..the next day trump said that she was mistaken and it IS a Muslim ban. Are you calling trump a liar? Or Stupid?
Did I call anyone stupid? Or are you merely attempting to put words in my mouth?
Are Muslims from the countries I listed allowed to come here or not under Trump's EO?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
I'll give you some time to research your answer.
Article II does not say that the Supreme Court cannot step in and set aside a policy that is unconstitutional. The Executive branch is the weakest of the three federal branches for a very good reason.
But it isn't unconstitutional.
it is a TEMPORARY ban on people coming from SOME countries.
Obama Admin Paused Iraq Refugee Program In 2011
thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped...for...
Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United …
There is NO right to immigrate to the United States. This is Leftist judges ignoring the Constitution.
Gee, that sounds like it may upset their plans for the US to join the "global society" ad really squashes their dreams of open borders.
I presume you meant judicial branch, right?
True, but both national origin and religion are protected classes under federal law.
That said, I suspect SCOTUS will uphold this 3rd attempt at Trump's Muslim ban given the numerous revisions to it. Too bad Glorious Leader doesn't hire competent lawyers, eh? It's almost like he gets them all from the lowest-ranked law schools in the country.
I wonder how long until some well meaning leftist attempts to ban white flight.
Two douchbags think a private restaurant is a public park. They deserved to get arrested.
Yep, things are tough all over. It takes two to make friends, ya know? If the community doesn't embrace his ideas, maybe he has something to do with it.
Stop. No one cares.
Stop again. No one cares. Not every thing that some batch of whiners wants is a damned civil right.
Yep, real life sucks. It is real, though, and whining about stuff that happened before anyone alive was even born isn't going to accomplish a lot. Don't get the idea that the United States invented that.